MEMBER-TO-MEMBER
Should Ethics Violations Be Public? Should Ethics Proceedings Be Public or Confidential?

by Janet Donelson, FAIA
Chair, National Ethics Council

Summary: An architect’s livelihood and financial well-being are dependent upon his or her professional reputation in the community—whether the architect provides services to public or private entities or is employed by another architect, contractor, or public or private organization. In this context, accusations as well as findings of ethical misconduct can have serious economic consequences for the architect.

The National Ethics Council of the AIA is composed of seven members and is the body charged with hearing and deciding charges of ethical misconduct brought by clients or colleagues of Institute members. The sanctions imposed by the Institute for violation of the AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct are limited to admonition, censure, and suspension or termination of membership in the Institute. The Institute does not levy fines or exercise “police” powers of the government. Therefore, in order for sanctions resulting from ethics violations to be effective in discouraging unethical behavior, those sanctions must be made public. Under the Council’s current procedures, the finding of an ethical violation and the imposition of censure, suspension, or termination of membership are publicly disclosed in Institute publications. Admonition is a private sanction generally imposed only for inadvertent and immediately corrected behavior.

For sanctions resulting from ethics violations to be effective in discouraging unethical behavior, those sanctions must be made public

Accusations are not findings
Just as a finding of violation and imposition of sanction must be made public to be effective, an accusation of violation should not be public. Accusations should remain confidential until a complaint is reviewed, a hearing is held, and the decision process is complete, because the rights of the innocent deserve protection. Thus, the procedures of the AIA National Ethics Council require that both complainant and respondent maintain the confidential nature of the ethics complaint until the process reaches conclusion. If the result is no violation, the complaint remains confidential and is never publicly reported. If the result is a violation worthy of censure, suspension, or termination, the violation is published by the Institute and the requirement of confidentiality is lifted to that extent.

Sanctions must be based on finding of fact—not on unproven accusation or rumor.

So—the question arises—should proceedings not resulting in a finding of violation be publicly reported—to exonerate the member, and, if so, only with the consent of the member? Should proceedings be shared within the Institute, so that members against whom a complaint has been filed, and who might be found in violation, not be elected to Institute office or receive Institute awards?

The Council’s thinking is guided by the principle that the ethics process must provide ample opportunity for the complainant to present conclusive evidence of any violation, and for the accused member to defend against the complaint before an AIA National Ethics Council decision and sanction—either from the Institute directly or as a result of damage to his or her professional reputation—is completed. Sanctions must be based on finding of fact—not on unproven accusation or rumor. Under current Council procedures, neither of the above cases would be made public.